Foggy Bottom Linehttp://foggybottomline.com
Politics, Economics, and other Silly Things
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:14:52 +0000 en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1Topics in American Politicshttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=414
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=414#respondMon, 11 Mar 2019 19:14:49 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=414Starting on March 30, I’ll be presenting a lecture series on Topics in American Politics at the Lokal Cafe in Colonial Williamsburg. In the first session I’ll discuss how slavery influenced the writing and ratification of the Constitution and the ways this impacts American politics today.

Later lectures will cover the expansion of civil rights and how this helped lead to the sorting of US political parties, the ways interest groups and gerrymandering polarized US politics over existential issues, and Russia’s efforts to influence US elections.

Please contact me at rss (at) foggybottomline (dot) com if you have questions or would like more information.

]]>http://foggybottomline.com/?feed=rss2&p=4140More on the Scandals in Virginia Politicshttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=407
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=407#respondFri, 22 Feb 2019 22:15:25 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=407A few weeks have passed since scandals shook up Virginia politics, starting with the news that Governor Ralph Northam’s Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) year book page included a photo of two men at a party. One of the men in the photo wore a KKK costume, the other blackface. Governor Northam could not, in the moment, definitively say he was not one of those people. So Northam admitted he may have been in the photo, then retracted that admission the next day.

Few asked Herring to step down. He’d volunteered himself as insensitive on race in his youth, and the Republican-controlled House of Delegates would choose his replacement. Herring also has a very good record on race that demonstrates personal growth on the issue. And few Democrats have any desire to see a GOP Attorney General. Subsequent revelations that Senate Majority Leader Tommy Normentalso had a blackface past didn’t hurt Herring’s case.

Governor Northam also seems to have survived his scandal. Black Caucus groups have shown support, and polls show little interest among Virginians to push him out. He’s kept his political coalition together, almost certainly with cover from Donald Trump. Anyone demanding Northam’s resignation loses moral authority unless they demand the same from Mr. “Good people on both sides.”

Fairfax is another matter. One accusation muddies his reputation, but two suggests a pattern, and one accuser told others contemporaneously – using the word “rape.” He could face no-kidding criminal exposure. Still, Fairfax claims the accusations against him are “demonstrably false.” What’s left of his political career depends on his hole card trumping his accusers’ hands.

It does not make sense for me to rescind my call for Governor Northam to resign. I still believe he wasted an opportunity during his earlier career to use his experience to have a discussion about race in Virginia we still need to have. He knew about the racial climate at Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and EVMS during his academic career and he knew he had participated in insensitive behavior among students at both universities. He could have and should have used his own personal story to call it out and help move the entire Commonwealth forward on racial issues. He instead chose to bury it.

Events, however, have given him a second chance to lead that discussion. A “Racial Reconciliation” tour makes sense but piggybacking on commemoration events intended to honor those who protested exactly the kind of racism Northam took so lightly in his youth does not. He and Herring need to initiate their own discussion of Virginia’s racial past, what they’ve seen and done, and how their experiences changed them. They need to call out institutions, including VMI and ESMS, that not only permitted deplorable racial insensitivity but memorialized it in souvenir yearbooks and other institutional documents. They need to make sure minority communities don’t have to put up with dangerous and unnecessary infrastructure because history left them without the political power needed to stop it.

And let’s not ignore the fact that a serial racist and sexual abuser sits in the Oval Office. None of the people calling for Northam et al to step down make similar demands of Donald Trump, who has shown both racist and sexist insensitivity. Northam’s youth (and apparent drunkenness) doesn’t excuse his behavior in college, but he at least has avoided openly racist rhetoric while in office. Trump has not. GOP failure to police Republican leaders does not mean Democrats should ignore racism and sexism in their own Party, but it does give them cover.It’s time to have the conversation on racism and sexism we’ve needed in the US since Thomas Jefferson cited the inalienable rights of Man in the Declaration of Independence even as his chattel slaves worked his plantation at home. If Ralph Northam won’t resign, he needs to lead this discussion in Virginia. He can start at Union Hill.

]]>http://foggybottomline.com/?feed=rss2&p=4070Ralph Northam Should Resign – Updatedhttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=401
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=401#commentsSat, 02 Feb 2019 13:26:18 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=401UPDATE: Governor Northam held a press conference this afternoon and walked back his admission last night that he was in the picture:

“I believe now and then that I am not either of the people in this photo. This was not me in that picture. That was not Ralph Northam.”

Northam went on to say that he gave photos to the yearbook staff, did not participate in assembling his page, did not purchase a copy, and hadn’t seen it in thirty years. Publication blindsided him.

Maybe the yearbook staff placed the photo in question on Northam’s page by mistake and he genuinely did not know about this until yesterday. Which of course begs the question: why admit to being one of the people in the picture unless you remember wearing blackface or a KKK costume but cannot remember a specific? Someone out there might have photos of me that I’d prefer never became public, but I know one thing with 100% certainty: no picture of me in blackface or a KKK outfit exists. I’ve never worn either. Ever.

Northam’s admission that he wore blackface for a dancing contest, which he won with a Michael Jackson impersonation, doesn’t help. Dressing up like Jackson was common enough at the time – Jackson was on the Jackson’s Victory Tour and at the height of his fame. But he could have performed without the shoe polish makeup, and his claim that he “only used a little because it’s hard to get off” means he was familiar with the blackface concept (and likely knows photos of this exist that he wanted to get out in front of).

Perhaps we shouldn’t hold Governor Northam responsible for the photo appearing on his page – this kind of mistake happens. And I very much hope that Governor Northam was not in the photo. But I’m not sure it matters any more, even if this turns out to be a right wing hit job using a doctored photo or yearbook. That he couldn’t vehemently deny this based on his own memory says quite a lot. Northam’s denial this afternoon muddies the waters. But resignation remains the right course.

Like everyone, Northam is at least in part a product of the time and place of his upbringing, and his Eastern Shore youth and Virginia Military Institute college career apparently included problematic attitudes on race. Whatever his thinking on racial equality today, the Governor clearly had no problem joking about terrorizing or making fun of people of color in 1984. I would hope that Northam’s time in the US Army and as a pediatrician lead to some personal introspection and change.

But if he has truly adjusted his attitudes about human beings not like him he could have owned his past and used it as a way to help Virginia confront its own problematic history of slavery and resistance to desegregation. He could have turned it into a teaching point about ways to move America to racial equality. Instead, Ralph Northam either hoped no one would discover this disgusting photograph or forgot it altogether – which is problematic in itself.

We still pay for this sin – or at least people of color still pay. Even after the end of de jure slavery, de facto slavery in the form of Jim Crow laws, redlining and housing discrimination, voter suppression, and depression of education opportunities through segregated schools has kept families of color from building wealth and participating fully in American society. Efforts by white elites to socialize poor whites to fear poor blacks after the Civil War shows its effects through American attitudes about social safety nets and immigration still today. I don’t mean to suggest that the United States has not been a force for liberty and justice in the world. But America becomes more exceptional as such a force when we live by example for others, and we cannot do this without confronting this very real and very problematic history.

None of us has a perfect past, free of troubling actions, decisions, or attitudes. We all change as we grow, and I seriously doubt that Ralph Northam still holds views on race that would allow him to attend a party dressed in blackface or a KKK costume. He almost certainly has changed his attitudes about racial equality. As he became a prominent pediatrician and then politician, he had a unique opportunity to help Virginians have a discussion about its racial history and how people like him could overcome their past and help us move forward together. This may not have won him the Governorship, but it would have helped make Virginia a better place to live. Sadly, he forgot his past or chose to bury it instead.

This morning, Governor Northam will hold a press conference and will likely resign. He should.

]]>http://foggybottomline.com/?feed=rss2&p=4013Gun Violence and Virginia’s General Assemblyhttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=397
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=397#commentsWed, 30 Jan 2019 16:19:49 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=397Virginia’s General Assembly this session has already killed some important gun violence prevention legislation. Let me say that again: Republicans in Virginia’s legislature have blocked passage of popular policies that would help prevent gun violence without also interfering with the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Senate Courts of Justice Committee killed SB1034, which would have created a Class 1 Misdemeanor for purchasing more than one handgun in a 30 day period. Since it would have exempted several classes of gun purchasers, including anyone with a valid concealed handgun permit and anyone buying a handgun in a private sale, it’s not clear how this would interfere with the right of any law-abiding Virginia resident’s right to “keep and bear arms.” Besides the obvious point that the Second Amendment says nothing about just how many arms a citizen has a right to “keep and bear,” I personally wonder why anyone would want to purchase more than a dozen weapons of any kind in a given year. But since most citizens qualify for concealed permits, and any citizen could make as many private purchases as time permits, it seems that this legislation would have one important effect: making mass purchases of firearms for transport to states with more restrictive firearms laws slightly more difficult. This does, in fact, happen. And Virginia can help stop it.

SB1034 would not end this kind of gun trafficking forever. Nothing ever will, really (though a Federal gun violence prevention regime with uniform regulations would help). Just making it more difficult would require a system that alerted County Sheriffs and the Circuit Courts of outlier purchasers, and that runs into the desire of armed citizens to hide from the government whether they own firearms at all. But a person who has never before purchased a firearm in Virginia showing up wanting to buy 20 pistols in a couple of weeks should raise eyebrows. This won’t happen soon, but we said the same thing about drinking age and drunk driving not so long ago. Maybe this is an area where we can go back to an old method: give County Sheriffs a role. I bet every Sheriff you ask can give you a list of people in his or her county who should probably not have a gun handy. In the US we have no elected official who is closer to the people, and this may make Sheriffs the best gatekeeper on this.

The General Assembly also killed legislation that would prohibit sales of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and raise the minimum age for legal purchase of a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. Both bills would also have redefined “assault firearm” to mean a weapon with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. These policies also look like logical ways to reduce gun violence and its impact when it does happen without materially affecting the right of law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear arms.” After all, we prohibit some forms of dangerous speech. Why is prohibition of certain types of dangerous firearms?

The Senate did kill SB1158, what some call Constitutional Carry, 19-18 on Monday. This is a big defeat for the “anyone can carry, anywhere, anytime, open or concealed” lobby. Republican Senators Emmet Hanger and Dick Saslaw, to their credit, voted nay. Two other Republicans (Stanley and Wagner) abstained or missed the vote. Supporters of Constitutional Carry believe that government cannot limit Second Amendment rights by increasing the cost of exercising them, for instance with sales taxes on firearms, requiring permits or training, or liability regulations. They argue that it matters by citing Vermont as a low-crime state that has never restricted carrying firearms and suggesting that both deterrent and responsive effects would reduce crime under less restrictive concealed and open carry laws. Trouble is that Johns Hopkinsdata don’t support this claim, and in fact Constitutional Carry may increase crime. It has traditionally struck most people as intuitive that a person walking down the street with a gun might well be up to no good and should be reported to police. Constitutional Carry proponents want to normalize the presence of firearms in our routine lives – they want us to get used to seeing guns everywhere. Evidence suggests that this would not reduce crime by deterring criminals or ensuring rapid response, but it would without a doubt have one effect: make it easier for the bad guy to walk into a school, church, bank, sports bar, or government building without raising alarms.

And one key piece of gun violence legislation remains alive. HB2504 would make possession of a firearm by persons subject to a permanent protective order for subjecting another person to violence, force, or threat a Class 6 Felony. This kind of “Red Flag” law makes all the sense in the world: people who have demonstrated violent behavior toward others should not have a right to possess weapons after due process has confirmed their violent behavior. As of now this bill sits in the House Courts of Justice Committee. Click the link and if your Delegate sits on this Committee I urge you to let them know how you stand on this. Virginia Citizens Defense League members definitely will.

No exercise of any right comes without cost. Exercise of free speech and association is not free – we have to spend time if nothing else. My own exercise of the right to express myself on this blog costs something – web hosting is not free, and government rightly limits the scope of my right to political expression and constrains incitement to violence or defamation and libel. Expansion of my media empire would require further costs and conformance to regulations of many kinds, from employment to environmental. Those who wish to exercise other rights must also pay to do so – if your name isn’t Miranda, you probably don’t get SCOTUS certiori without an expensive lawyer. It’s not clear why exercise of Second Amendment rights should cost nothing.

In any event, we need to push the General Assembly to pass legislation that helps reduce gun violence and keep firearms out of the hands of bad guys with guns. The law should require a thorough criminal background check for all gun sales or transfers, and no person who cannot legally purchase a beer should be able to legally purchase a firearm. We need to find a way to limit possession of weapons with high muzzle velocity and/or allow rapid fire of large amounts of ammunition, including prohibition of bump stocks and other aftermarket devices. We need to hold people liable when others use their weapons to commit crimes, just as we hold the bartender accountable for damage caused by a drunk driver after serving a customer too much alcohol. And we need to lift the ban on research into the health effects on gun ownership and whether expanding gun possession and public carrying of firearms causes crime or helps reduce it.

]]>http://foggybottomline.com/?feed=rss2&p=3930More Equal Rights Amendment Thoughtshttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=390
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=390#respondSat, 19 Jan 2019 16:24:14 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=390Virginia’s State Senate has passed SB 284, a resolution ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by a 26-14 vote. Republicans, including my Senator (Ryan McDougle) cast all 14 no votes. The House version, HJ 577, now sits in that body’s Privileges and Elections Committee. It’s not clear yet whether the Chair of that Committee, Delegate Mark Cole, will even allow a vote, and I’d be surprised if he lets this out of his Committee.

The ERA seemed on a fast track for ratification when Congress sent it to the States in 1972. Large bipartisan majorities supported it, as did President Nixon (and later Presidents Ford and Carter). Then Phyllis Schlafly organized a “STOP ERA” campaign to protect what she and other conservative women saw as female privilege. Schlafly and her supporters argued that the ERA would eliminate gender-specific protections against drafting women for military service and forcing them to share public restrooms, as well as “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security. Largely a religious movement, these activists also believed in a social structure dominated by men. Their attacks on the ERA focused on the ways it could hurt women by limiting the ability of government to protect women from abuse by men who had more agency and power within this structure, but their true goal included protecting traditional male and female social roles.

Reasons for opposing the ERA haven’t changed much. They still amount to “but this would mean qualified women could attempt to take on traditionally male social roles.” One of the examples in this letter to the editorof my local free weekly paper, the Mechanicsville Local, makes my point. The ERA would “…erode the distinctions in the law between men and women so that schools cannot have sex-segregated sports programs,” the writer worries. He cites Darrin v Gould, a Washington State Supreme Court ruling that reversed a lower court ruling that allowed a public school system to bar two female students from playing on a high school football team. The girls both qualified in every way to play on the team. They met physical and medical standards, participated in practice sessions as required, and met all administrative requirements. Government excluded them from participation under an arbitrary rule: no girls allowed, and for conservatives this is the point.

The Constitution does not generally constrain private citizens or the organizations they join or create except inasmuch as it empowers government to regulate practices when needed to support a compelling government policy (e.g., protect water quality or prohibit discrimination in the marketplace). The ERA would simply further limit Government power by specifically requiring neutral government treatment without respect to sex (not gender) in government policy and regulation of individual, group, or organization behavior.

This means Government could not favor organizations that discriminate against women with subsidies or tax preferences. Women who can meet the neutral standards based on the requirements of the job or activity should have access to that job or activity. Conservatives fear this because they know it could indeed mean the end of tax subsidies for religious and other organizations that discriminate (see for example Bob Jones University v US). People have a right, of course, to “free exercise” of a religious belief that God wants women excluded from positions of leadership in their churches. They do not have a right to state sanction of this discrimination in the form of tax preferences.

They also worry that it would mean more women at the top of traditionally male professions such as military combat service. Demonstration of combat leadership skills by women does not support the conservative “men and women are objectively different” view of the world. I spent 20 years as an Army combat soldier, and women were excluded from the Armor branch I served in simply because of the “no girls allowed” rule then in force. I can tell you from personal experience that many women are quite capable of meeting the physical, mental, and leadership requirements for service in combat units – just as many men are not. And arguments that it would damage unit cohesion amount to a case that Army officers and NCOs are poor leaders who cannot manage change. Bravo sierra.

Most of all, I suspect, they worry that courts could interpret the ERA to mean that government cannot make and enforce their preferred categorization of Americans as objectively male or female, or privilege in any way social organizations that wish to. This would limit the ability of religious organizations to resist social acceptance of people who do not consider themselves one or the other. All of this amounts to a conflict between those who support the existing social structure and roles that privilege men (especially white men) and those who want women and people with a less didactic sexuality to have more agency and social power.

Societies change. Stagecoaches and slide rules have come and gone, and this is no less true for social roles. We should task government to stay neutral in the resulting community debate, and an ERA mandates this neutrality. If elected officials insist on resisting this change, we need to elect new officials.

Congress sent the ERA to the States in March 1972 with a seven-year deadline. If approved by 38 of 50 States by 22 March 1979, this language would become part of the Constitution:

“Section 1.Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3.This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.”

Congress extended the time limit two years but only 35 states approved the Amendment and five later rescinded their ratification. Opponents argue that failure to ratify before the deadline killed the Amendment, and even without the time limit Virginia’s approval this year would not make it the 38thstate needed to make the ERA part of the Constitution. I don’t think the deadline argument carries a lot of weight. Article V of the Constitutiongives Congress no authority to set a time limit on ratification of Amendments it proposes. By the plain language of the this Article Amendments, once proposed, become part of the Constitution upon ratification by three-fourths of the states without regard to how long it takes.

The plain language of the Article also includes no provision for rescinding ratification – it simply says that a proposed Amendment becomes part of the Constitution upon ratification of three-quarters of the “state legislatures.” There is no “unless a State changes its mind” clause, and Congress ignored rescissions by Ohio and New Jersey of their ratification of the 14thAmendment. That said, the “last in time” principle suggests that if voters in a State objected to ratification by their legislature they could express this objection in an intervening election. If the newly seated legislature then rescinded ratification in time (before ratification by three-fourths of the States) it should arguably not be counted as part of the three-fourths needed.

My review of Constitutional history doesn’t shed much light on the Founders’ view of either but I’m no expert. Most of the discussion related to amending the Constitution during its drafting and ratification I could find centered on making sure States had a path to making changes without regard to whether Congress agreed.

In any event, Virginia’s General Assembly should ratify the Equal Rights Amendment because it’s the right thing to do. Government should not privilege either men or women with respect to rights (voting, domestic law) or responsibilities (military service). Nor should Government privilege institutions (e.g., with tax exemptions) that discriminate on race, gender, or any other grounds whether or not justified by religious (or for that matter any other) doctrine. The ERA is necessary because Government still privileges both individuals and institutions in these ways. And it’s only dangerous to those whose power depends on this discrimination. This is, by the way, a Libertarian view insofar as it limits the power of government to manage society (e. g., by deciding what does and does not constitute a “religion”).

Ratification by Virginia would not of course mean immediate inclusion of the ERA in the Constitution. It would instead start a lengthy court battle which, given the current composition of the courts (especially SCOTUS), likely results in a ruling that either restarts the process from the beginning or requires new ratifications to reach the three-fourths threshold. Either way, the women – and men – who support equality will not, and should not, give up. Social roles have already changed and conservatives cannot stop the social transformation I’ve seen during my lifetime from continuing. Women fly military aircraft in direct combat, and male control of business, military, and social (religious) institutions is coming to an end. Leaders in government and other social organizations, including Republicans in the General Assembly, better get a clue and manage this change rather than try to block it or voters will send them home. Just ask Bob Marshall.

]]>http://foggybottomline.com/?feed=rss2&p=3850Transportationhttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=382
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=382#respondThu, 03 Jan 2019 20:33:05 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=382A week before Christmas, John Massoud wrote about a Virginia Transportation Construction Alliance (VTCA) poll at The Bull Elephant. The poll shows strong public support for levying tolls on freight trucks or spending taxpayer funds to improve Interstate 81 in the western part of Virginia. Massoud rightly points out that the VTCA is a lobbying group with an interest in highway construction funding and we should take the poll with a grain of salt (I have not looked into the methodology). Still, he offers no solution to the mess I-81 has become and instead rejects the idea that government can be trusted with “my money.” We need infrastructure that helps Virginians efficiently move themselves and the products we make and sell, so I thought this would be a good hook to share some thoughts on transportation issues in the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately, the firms that make money moving raw materials to factories or goods to markets using this infrastructure can’t build it themselves. No individual corporation or business will realize the required return on investment, so no free market will organically allocate resources to the construction or maintenance of miles of highway that anyone can use any time. Our aggregated economic choices simply don’t create the necessary incentives.

Since our commerce depends on this infrastructure, we more or less have to find a way to get this done. No single agent can or will take on this cost alone, so we have to distribute the cost among stakeholders – those who use the highway – commercial and private users alike. Since everyone may use the infrastructure and we all benefit whether or not we also drive on it, we should also ask everyone to help pay for it. We can accomplish this through government, and if we don’t it won’t be there. This of course means permitting government to levy taxes and watching them to ensure they effectively use the funds.

For the immediate future the existing intermodal system will include interstate highways full of tractor trailer rig fleets and large private vehicles moving one passenger. Many of us would like to see more freight rail and passenger mass transit, but we still need to address critical needs as we move in this direction. This means investment in Virginia’s highway network, including construction and repair of pavement, bridges, and interchanges even as we shift to other modes.

This does not mean we should favor highway construction over mass transit by requiring long-distance passenger and commuter rail to pay for itself while we subsidize freight trucks and passenger cars. This amounts to subsidizing the least efficient transportation mode. Every commuter who shifts to an energy efficient VRE or Metro train or bus – and every rail freight shipment – reduces vehicle traffic on congested roadways, and thereby construction and maintenance requirements. Virginia must begin to construct a 21stCentury transportation grid based on rail and other mass transit modes and reduces congestion by giving people better options that gets cars and trucks off the highways.

These factors have implications for how we pay for transportation infrastructure. Firms and people will of course work to keep down costs in both fiscal and convenience terms. At some price and convenience point firms and drivers will shift from highway use to rail or other modes. So it makes sense to finance infrastructure in a way that increases the price of less efficient modes so people pay the true cost.

Fuel taxes look like a good way to do this, but increasing base fuel prices actually reduce tax collections available for infrastructure because people drive less or purchase more efficient vehicles. This means we cannot count on these taxes for a consistent revenue stream. Taxes on mileage driven work a bit better, but like fuel taxes generate funds without a way to force users to pay for what they actually use or target spending on problem routes.

Tolls do a better job of capturing actual use, and collection methods can allow application of revenue to the specific stretches of highway where the toll is paid. They’re less effective however at capturing the true cost unless the system accounts for vehicle weight and energy efficiency – heavy and/or less efficient vehicles do more damage more quickly to both the highway and the environment. They also tend to shift the congestion problem to other roads – tolling I-95 will shift traffic to US 1, at least at the margins.

We can adjust tolls and fuel taxes in ways that address these issues. We could greatly expand tolling, for example, which would let us reduce the amount tolled at each station and dedicate some portion collected to the stretch of highway where drivers actually pay it. Allocating some percentage of fuel taxes collected in specific places (e.g., city, county, or zip code) to maintenance of local infrastructure would also help. A dedicated tax on wholesale or retail sales is another way to ensure that those who benefit from good infrastructure pay its cost. Even better if we can tie this tax to the logistics chain supplying the store.

Massoud agrees that I-81 needs work. Congestion slows down progress and makes travel less safe, and this is true along other transportation corridors in Virginia. But it’s wrong to complain that government unwisely spends transportation funds solely because he hasn’t yet seen the improvements he wants to see. In fact, constructing and maintaining the infrastructure our economy needs requires government action – no private firm will invest in highways alone, and no consortium of private businesses appears ready to get together and take this on – even though the private sector has the money to do so.

We should direct this government action toward construction of green infrastructure that moves freight and people out of trucks and cars and uses renewable energy for fuel. Simply moving freight to rail cars would help, and we certainly need more mass public passenger transit. But creating communities where people can live, work, and play without getting into a vehicle except for long-distance travel also makes sense.

And we should pay for transportation infrastructure with revenue streams that perform three functions. First, it should force users to pay the true cost of transporting themselves and the goods they consume. It should also ensure that those who benefit from transportation infrastructure pay a fair share to construct and maintain it. Finally, it should target spending of collected revenue on construction and maintenance of the most heavily used infrastructure.

One more thing:

Like many conservatives, Massoud complains about government efficiency:

“The fact is that giving more money to government never solves problems, it just gives the bureaucrats more money to spend – often times on things we do not need. Quite frankly, I wish that I could trust my government enough to give them money and know that they would do the right thing. But history shows that we cannot trust our government with more and more of our taxpayer dollars.”

Refusal by conservatives to “trust” government has always baffled me. To be sure, each of us can think of some government program we think is wasteful or ineffective, whether or not someone else benefits from the spending. But it’s not clear that private firms respond better than public agencies, as anyone who has spent the afternoon on the phone with the cable company or waiting all day for delivery of a microwave can see. And average citizens have a direct influence on government they lack with private businesses and more control over government behavior than corporate behavior. I get to help choose the Governor, but not a corporate CEO. But I have to engage, and pay attention, and vote so unwise and inefficient officials pay the price at the ballot box. Simply complaining about government and trying to kill it doesn’t help.

Because the Supreme Court in 2010 allowed the individual coverage mandate to stand as a tax, and Congress reduced the tax to zero in 2017, Reed argues, the entire law violates the Constitution since Congress has no power to require coverage except as a tax. Democrats will of course appeal this decision and may have the stronger argument. The ruling ignores the fact that Congress simply changed the tax rate – the tax itself remains in place. Until outright repeal, the law still rests on exercise on the power to tax even as Congress exercises its discretion by applying a zero rate. It’s also not clear that the entire law fails without the mandate. The US Supreme Court will of course adjudicate this question – and when it does all eyes will turn to Gorsuchand Kavanaugh.

The ACA rule requiring community-based underwriting for health insurance policies is an important regulation that Americans don’t want to surrender, and the ACA is good policy in other ways as well. It’s also important to remember that before the ACA health insurance companies could not only refuse to provide new policies to people with chronic health issues (e.g., high blood pressure) or previous illnesses (e.g., pediatric heart problems) – they could refuse to cover existing customers by making a case that the patient had failed to disclose a complete health history. See “Cancer patient tells of rips in health insurance safety net” for example. Or what if my insurance company refused to cover my colon cancer treatment on the grounds that I failed to tell them that a procedure had uncovered polyps in a relative? In the pre-ACA system health insurance companies could refuse to cover treatment for people who had religiously paid premiums for years. Americans don’t want to go back to that system. Neither does the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, or the AARP.

For the record, I believe that over the long term we should and will move to a single-payer health insurance system that ensures access to health care for every American as a matter of moral principle. Markets have not and cannot efficiently allocate health care resources unless we define “efficient allocation of resources” in this context as “maximize profit” rather than “save lives.” Commonwealth, not corporate wealth.

Reed’s ruling will also help highlight another agenda: the role of courts and judges in policymaking and the legislative process. Judge Reed ruled in a lawsuit brought in part by States in an exercise of their sovereign policymaking authority. They hoped to overturn a decision made by Congress through appeal to the judicial branch – an effort both legally and politically legitimate. Judicial appointments depend on political considerations, notwithstanding their protection from direct popular influence. Politicians have historically shied away from attempt to ideologically co-opt the judiciary for fear of destroying its legitimacy (or fear of losing the battle for control). Authoritarianism in the US – whether communist or fascist – would depend on support for the project from an ideological Supreme Court.

We should have both conversations. Americans need to settle on a health care system for the long term so doctors, patients, investors, and corporations can plan. And we need to discuss the role of judges in Constitutional interpretation more openly – not to settle on an interpretive methodology but to make sure more Americans know that who we place in judicial positions matters in our daily lives. Since Virginia holds elections every year, these conversations will start that much sooner in the Commonwealth.

]]>http://foggybottomline.com/?feed=rss2&p=3800Predictions from The Bull Elephant – and a Few of My Ownhttp://foggybottomline.com/?p=377
http://foggybottomline.com/?p=377#respondTue, 06 Nov 2018 19:33:41 +0000http://foggybottomline.com/?p=377Contributors and staff at The Bull Elephanthave predicted the outcome of today’s elections and they deliver about what you’d expect from true believers. Most think the GOP will hold the House and some think Republicans will pick up 3 or more seats in the Senate, with one suggesting a 60-seat majority. Many argue that Corey Stewart will outperform polls and one thinks he could have won with more help from the Republican national and state parties. Almost all think Barbara Comstock will lose, but few think any other Democrats will win Virginia House seats they aren’t heavily favored to win (e.g., Don McEachin [D-4]).

Most of this is pretty standard-issue political prognostication from activists with a particular agenda. One predictor stands out, however: Catharine Trauernicht.

“I believe that America experienced Divine intervention on November 7, 2016, to breathe new life into our Republic. And it’s not going to evaporate next Tuesday.”

But I did attend a Corey Stewart rally in Mechanicsville on Sunday and was not that impressed. Only about 60 people attended, including staff and videographers (presumably from a local TV station). Almost this many showed up to hear me give a lecture on the Electoral College to an Indivisible group two months ago and I must admit surprise that Stewart could not generate a larger crowd in arguably the most conservative county on the East Coast. This was moreover not exactly an enthusiastic crowd – they cheered when Stewart predicted a shock to the political world when he upsets Kaine, but body language revealed their pessimism. Interestingly, no Republican state or local politicians joined Stewart at the event that I know of (with the exception of one Board of Supervisors hopeful). No Rob Wittman, no Ryan McDougle, no Chris Peace. This stood in stark contrast to events I’ve attended featuring Tim Kaine, where local officials line up to get selfies with him.

In any event, I wonder whether any of the analysis offered by Bull Elephant staff relies on actual data and how much on wishful thinking like Ms. Trauernicht’s. To the extent it’s data I wonder how much of it comes from inside the Fox News bubble. Historically, for example, we know that Democrats do well in elections when voters show up in larger numbers. This appears to happen because the Liberal coalition is broad, but perhaps not as deep as Democrats would like. The Democratic Party has more voters, but they are less committed to ongoing political activity and don’t show up for mid-terms. Conservatives depend on a smaller and mostly white but deeper coalition, at least in terms of enthusiasm. They reliably show up to vote in off-year elections. Since it’s very clear that Democrats have bumped up their enthusiasm and activism levels a few notches, do the Bull Elephant folks think Trump so effectively motivates his core white base that they can overcome high Democratic turnout?

Early voting is off the charts, and it seems to me that the makeup of these new early voters is a key independent variable in this analysis. If these are new voters registered by energized liberals, especially women, I would expect a blue wave – and a relatively large one. This goes double if many of these early voters are first-timers.

I see no evidence of Republican efforts to expand their coalition. Indeed, most Republican candidates seem to have relied on electoral strategies (immigration fears) that energize the base at the risk of turning off previously dependable GOP constituencies (e.g., white women with college degrees). The one policy issue they can claim effectiveness on, the economy, seems largely missing from their stump speeches. Republicans also seem to have placed a lot of eggs in the voter suppression basket, and the vote does not look very suppressed so far. More than twice as many voters under 29 have voted early as in 2014, for example. If true, this probably reflects an expansion of the Democratic coalition that the polls do not capture.

After missing the Trump win so completely in 2016 I’m reluctant to make specific predictions. Historic fundamentals suggest a huge shift in the political center of gravity which gerrymandering can’t stop and could even make worse. Polling of quite a few races has not often strayed outside the margin of error, and I’ve become convinced that most pollsters make too many incorrect assumptions about the makeup of the electorate to get very close. I think this is particularly true this cycle – the high rates of new voter registration we’ve seen this year suggest models could be off with respect to who they project will actually show up.

With so many close races, extreme results are possible depending on how things break. I happen to think most will break toward the Democratic candidates in both House and Senate races. They don’t have to break much. So I predict generally that the Democrats will take control of the House and fall just short in the Senate unless Heidi Heitkamp can pull it out. I actually think Beto O’Rourke will win Texas by the skin of his teeth and Bill Nelson will pull it out in Florida. If both of these come true and Dean Heller goes down in Nevada we could be looking at a 50-50 Senate – close but no cigar if you’re a Dem.

The House is easier to scope out. I don’t see Republicans holding on to seats in any of the GOP incumbent districts Clinton won in 2016. I also see Virginia Democratic candidates doing well, largely because of Tim Kaine’s popularity and a general distaste for Corey Stewart’s Trump impersonation. I’ll resist the urge to make predictions about specific seats except to say that I think Abigail Spanberger will win against Dave Brat. Vangie Williams can win the First if she turns out minorities in high numbers on the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula while racking up majorities in Northern Virginia precincts. But sadly I suspect she’ll fall just short. Conservatives I’ve spoken to have issues with Rob Wittman, but I don’t see them splitting their tickets Stewart/Williams. Kaine/Wittman split tickets seem more likely to me.

Of course I told everyone who would listen that Trump had no chance in Hell of winning the Presidency. I got that one badly wrong because I just couldn’t believe any Obama voters would make that switch. So the odds are high that I don’t know what I’m talking about. We’ll know soon enough, for good or ill.